I haven't yet learned about how medieval and early modern English families traveled for visiting and business. Was it typical for people to go 100 miles or more, for example, to visit family? Was it a big deal and did it take a lot of prep to travel from North Yorkshire to London? Was it usual for parents to make marriage contracts with a son or daughter's prospective spouse who lived a "long" way away? For a man to acquire an advowson in another shire?

How did people communicate in those times...by letter? How did word of a death or another important event happen quickly? How did people who lived some distance from each other work on the details of a marriage contract, for example?

On Sunday, 27 March 2022 at 14:27:32 UTC+1, Girl57 wrote:
> I haven't yet learned about how medieval and early modern English families traveled for visiting and business. Was it typical for people to go 100 miles or more, for example, to visit family? Was it a big deal and did it take a lot of prep to travel from North Yorkshire to London? Was it usual for parents to make marriage contracts with a son or daughter's prospective spouse who lived a "long" way away? For a man to acquire an advowson in another shire?
>
> How did people communicate in those times...by letter? How did word of a death or another important event happen quickly? How did people who lived some distance from each other work on the details of a marriage contract, for example?
There is no one size fits all during the Middle Ages. What might be a longish way for a knight with just a few manors would be comparatively insignificant for an earl with manors in six different counties. Nonetheless, travel would be a normal part of a lord and lady's life (see the illustration in the Luttrell Psalter at https://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/ttp/luttrell/accessible/pages25and26.html#content). They would travel from one demesne to another (manors used personally by the lord rather than those subinfeudated to a vassal). This would allow them to live off the produce of that manor for a while, check on how their bailiff was looking after things, and especially to keep in touch with neighbours in that area. The lord of a manor could be summoned to attend his superior lord at the caput of the honour, which could be some distance away. Or he could be summoned to assemble with the rest of the army at the other end of the country, in the north to campaign against the Scots, or to meet in a southern port en route to Flanders, Brittany or Gascony. Or, if he were important enough, he could be summoned to attend the king in Parliament. Travel was nothing out of the ordinary.

The well-to-do would send a servant as a messenger with verbal instructions, often confirmed in writing. Peasants might be illiterate, although not necessarily so; judging by the number of psalters and books of hours that were produced, knightly families and their officers could read well enough. Sir Thomas Gray of Heton, a professional soldier and son of a professional soldier, read works in French and Latin before dictating his 'Scalachronica'. (Compare twentieth-century business men dictating to their secretaries.) There was a constant stream of travellers, pilgrims and messengers, friars and other churchmen, pedlars and chapmen, knights and aristocrats, often staying in monasteries. News from other places was good payment for hospitality.

Peter Howarth

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 12:02:12 PM UTC-4, Peter Howarth wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 March 2022 at 14:27:32 UTC+1, Girl57 wrote:
> > I haven't yet learned about how medieval and early modern English families traveled for visiting and business. Was it typical for people to go 100 miles or more, for example, to visit family? Was it a big deal and did it take a lot of prep to travel from North Yorkshire to London? Was it usual for parents to make marriage contracts with a son or daughter's prospective spouse who lived a "long" way away? For a man to acquire an advowson in another shire?
> >
> > How did people communicate in those times...by letter? How did word of a death or another important event happen quickly? How did people who lived some distance from each other work on the details of a marriage contract, for example?
> There is no one size fits all during the Middle Ages. What might be a longish way for a knight with just a few manors would be comparatively insignificant for an earl with manors in six different counties. Nonetheless, travel would be a normal part of a lord and lady's life (see the illustration in the Luttrell Psalter at https://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/ttp/luttrell/accessible/pages25and26.html#content). They would travel from one demesne to another (manors used personally by the lord rather than those subinfeudated to a vassal). This would allow them to live off the produce of that manor for a while, check on how their bailiff was looking after things, and especially to keep in touch with neighbours in that area. The lord of a manor could be summoned to attend his superior lord at the caput of the honour, which could be some distance away. Or he could be summoned to assemble with the rest of the army at the other end of the country, in the north to campaign against the Scots, or to meet in a southern port en route to Flanders, Brittany or Gascony. Or, if he were important enough, he could be summoned to attend the king in Parliament. Travel was nothing out of the ordinary.
>
> The well-to-do would send a servant as a messenger with verbal instructions, often confirmed in writing. Peasants might be illiterate, although not necessarily so; judging by the number of psalters and books of hours that were produced, knightly families and their officers could read well enough. Sir Thomas Gray of Heton, a professional soldier and son of a professional soldier, read works in French and Latin before dictating his 'Scalachronica'. (Compare twentieth-century business men dictating to their secretaries.) There was a constant stream of travellers, pilgrims and messengers, friars and other churchmen, pedlars and chapmen, knights and aristocrats, often staying in monasteries. News from other places was good payment for hospitality.
>
> Peter Howarth
Thank you so much, Peter. So helpful and interesting. I have no earls in my direct ancestry but do have some knights and non-knighted gentry..."gentlemen." My question was mostly for understanding of gentlemen who lived in Notts and Derby, whose ancestral family lived in North Yorkshire, it's thought. Wasn't sure if younger sons of the knightly family in Yorkshire would move to western Notts and eastern Derby -- especially if they had relatives there -- or if whole family might move when the last lord died with no male heirs and the "manor" went to someone else?

12th great uncle Thomas FitzRandolph was married by contract to a Katherine, an illegitimate daughter of Sir Godfrey Foljambe of Walton (Derby -- d. 1541); Godfrey was m. to Katherine Leek, and his mistress was Joanna Maunsfeld. He had served as esquire of the body to King Henry VII. Would that have been considered a good marriage for Thomas's FitzRandolph family of gentlemen? We think Thomas was descended from the FitzRandall Lords of Spennithorne, Yorkshire, or from the FitzRandolphs of Alfreton, Derby (who, way back, had at least one High Sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire among them). How would Foljambe's family have evaluated the FitzRandolph family? (Thomas's father, Christopher FitzRandolph, had a 1514 marriage contract that included the names of a number of longtime Derbyshire families, several of whom had served as High Sheriffs of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, and the Royal Forests.

I read Sir Godfrey's will, here (Suretees Soc, Vol CXVI, p. 178/image 185), in which he passes responsibility for Katherine's marriage contract to his son James:

https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/viewer/617257/?offset=0#page=185&viewer=picture&o=&n=0&q
Also found reference to the arrangement of Sir Godfrey's illegitimate daughters' marriage in book, "The Gentleman's Mistress," (Thornton, Tim and Katharine Carlton. The gentleman's mistress: Illegitimate relationships and children, 1450–1640. Manchester University Press, 1999.)

On 27/03/2022 14:27, Girl57 wrote:
> I haven't yet learned about how medieval and early modern English families traveled for visiting and business. Was it typical for people to go 100 miles or more, for example, to visit family? Was it a big deal and did it take a lot of prep to travel from North Yorkshire to London? Was it usual for parents to make marriage contracts with a son or daughter's prospective spouse who lived a "long" way away? For a man to acquire an advowson in another shire?
>
> How did people communicate in those times...by letter? How did word of a death or another important event happen quickly? How did people who lived some distance from each other work on the details of a marriage contract, for example?
>
>
>
It depended on who you were and on circumstances.

The king and the larger landowners had estates up and down the country
and their courts would travel around them. Anyone under obligation to
attend one of the courts would also have to travel. The courts would,
of course, provide a common meeting point, both time and place, for
people whose homes might be further apart so in your example of marriage
contract negotiation attendance at court might provide the opportunity.

At the other extreme a non-free manorial tenant would be confined to the
lord's lands and be subject to arrest if he left (enforcing this on
another lord's lands might be problematic, of course).

Nevertheless the tenant would have occasion to attend the manorial
court. This might not be a big deal if the court was in the village but
in a large manor such as Wakefield for a tenant in one of the outlying
townships this would take a full day, about 20 miles each way, probably
walking, plus attendance at court. The elected officers would have to
do that every three weeks so quite often anyone with routine property
transactions would have someone who had to attend on other business do
it for them. However, if the lord had to contribute to the army a
tenant might find himself in Scotland (an experience of some Wakefield
tenants) or wherever.

On the other hand drovers, carters and carriers would depend on making
long distance journeys to major cities and fairs. In the post-medieval
there were certainly pack-horse operators running a regular service
between Kendal and London. It seems likely that this would extend back
into the medieval - without maps a regular journey from Kendal to London
would be feasible, taking on odd commisions - Kendal to Tavistock, then
Exeter to Norwich, Kings Lynn to Swansea, Cardiff to London - would be a
recipe for getting lost. That sort of regular travel would provide a
means of conveying messages for those who could not afford their own
messengers.

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 1:06:52 PM UTC-4, Ian Goddard wrote:
> On 27/03/2022 14:27, Girl57 wrote:
> > I haven't yet learned about how medieval and early modern English families traveled for visiting and business. Was it typical for people to go 100 miles or more, for example, to visit family? Was it a big deal and did it take a lot of prep to travel from North Yorkshire to London? Was it usual for parents to make marriage contracts with a son or daughter's prospective spouse who lived a "long" way away? For a man to acquire an advowson in another shire?
> >
> > How did people communicate in those times...by letter? How did word of a death or another important event happen quickly? How did people who lived some distance from each other work on the details of a marriage contract, for example?
> >
> >
> >
> It depended on who you were and on circumstances.
>
> The king and the larger landowners had estates up and down the country
> and their courts would travel around them. Anyone under obligation to
> attend one of the courts would also have to travel. The courts would,
> of course, provide a common meeting point, both time and place, for
> people whose homes might be further apart so in your example of marriage
> contract negotiation attendance at court might provide the opportunity.
>
> At the other extreme a non-free manorial tenant would be confined to the
> lord's lands and be subject to arrest if he left (enforcing this on
> another lord's lands might be problematic, of course).
>
> Nevertheless the tenant would have occasion to attend the manorial
> court. This might not be a big deal if the court was in the village but
> in a large manor such as Wakefield for a tenant in one of the outlying
> townships this would take a full day, about 20 miles each way, probably
> walking, plus attendance at court. The elected officers would have to
> do that every three weeks so quite often anyone with routine property
> transactions would have someone who had to attend on other business do
> it for them. However, if the lord had to contribute to the army a
> tenant might find himself in Scotland (an experience of some Wakefield
> tenants) or wherever.
>
> On the other hand drovers, carters and carriers would depend on making
> long distance journeys to major cities and fairs. In the post-medieval
> there were certainly pack-horse operators running a regular service
> between Kendal and London. It seems likely that this would extend back
> into the medieval - without maps a regular journey from Kendal to London
> would be feasible, taking on odd commisions - Kendal to Tavistock, then
> Exeter to Norwich, Kings Lynn to Swansea, Cardiff to London - would be a
> recipe for getting lost. That sort of regular travel would provide a
> means of conveying messages for those who could not afford their own
> messengers.
Ian, thanks so much for this. So interesting to start learning about the details of daily life. All that walking must have kept people fit! I haven't been sure about the lives of tenants-in-chief and "gentlemen," and whether these folks would have messengers, or could send people lower on the land ladder to do some of their chores for them.

I have an ancestor who lived in and near Cambridge in the mid- to late- 16th century, and his will cites his ownership of booths at Sturbridge Fair. How fun to imagine what a spectacle that must have been! If he owned booths, does that mean he was the seller of goods, or did booth owners rent their stalls to purveyors of goods? Would love to have a been a fly on the wall.

On 27/03/2022 17:39, Girl57 wrote:
> He had served as esquire of the body to King Henry VII. Would that have been considered a good marriage for Thomas's FitzRandolph family of gentlemen?

Someone in daily contact with the king was in a very privileged
position. Plenty of opportunities for "Could you put in a good word for
me with His Majesty?" along with a suitable consideration.

Your Foljambes probably transplanted my Knuttons across the Pennines.
They administered the Forest of the Peak and Knutton, now part of
Newcastle under Lyme, would have come under their remit. The place name
doesn't seem to have given rise to a surname over on that side; the
first Knuttons I've found were settled close to Chesterfield but seem to
have been thinly scattered where the Foljambes had property. The
earliest records are in the Foljambe documents. I think somebody "de
Knutton" was taken into their employ and he or a descendent was granted
land in Barlow.

Ian

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 2:36:06 PM UTC-4, Ian Goddard wrote:
> On 27/03/2022 17:39, Girl57 wrote:
> > He had served as esquire of the body to King Henry VII. Would that have been considered a good marriage for Thomas's FitzRandolph family of gentlemen?
> Someone in daily contact with the king was in a very privileged
> position. Plenty of opportunities for "Could you put in a good word for
> me with His Majesty?" along with a suitable consideration.
>
> Your Foljambes probably transplanted my Knuttons across the Pennines.
> They administered the Forest of the Peak and Knutton, now part of
> Newcastle under Lyme, would have come under their remit. The place name
> doesn't seem to have given rise to a surname over on that side; the
> first Knuttons I've found were settled close to Chesterfield but seem to
> have been thinly scattered where the Foljambes had property. The
> earliest records are in the Foljambe documents. I think somebody "de
> Knutton" was taken into their employ and he or a descendent was granted
> land in Barlow.
>
> Ian
I am encountering mention of Chesterfield quite a lot, and Aldwarke re: Foljambes. And finding that my FitzRandolphs were both Notts and Derby folks. The FitzRandolph pedigree in one of the Visitations has a note that Christopher Fitz -- whose son married Sir Foljambes daughter -- had letters written to him by Henry VIII (a member here looked and said this reference wasn't part of the original document). If this is true, it might be a good example of Sir Foljambe putting in a good word for his son's father-in-law?

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 6:27:32 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
> Was it usual for parents to make marriage contracts with a son or daughter's prospective spouse who lived a "long" way away? For a man to acquire an advowson in another shire?

To supplement what others have said by addressing this particular point, it was not unusual. As early as Domesday, one can see more prominent men with holdings spread across the country, and in turn their vassals might show up in multiple of their disparate holdings, while likewise, a major tenant at one holding might be brought together with a major tenant of another, for the purposes of negotiating an intermarriage, though the intercession of their lord.

Separately, London was a magnet, drawing younger sons and those politically inclined into its orbit from all over the country, and as such it served as a venue for the mid-level gentry from all over the country to intermix and intermarry. In addition to those going to London to, for example, serve in Parliament, a look at court cases and wills from the countryside often name younger sons as being 'of London', and they can sometimes be found in London records as, for example, Livery Company or Inns of Court members, and London-area visitations show people arriving from the hinterlands to establish families, or established area families marrying the daughters of minor hinterland gentry, thus acquiring lands, advowsons, etc. from far afield. Particularly in the later medieval period, the rich London bourgioisie would obtain by royal grant or purchase a country holding, and establish a new line of county gentry with London social connections. Obviously, there was less mixing at a distance than among local families, but it was not a rare phenomenon at all.

taf

On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 10:40:47 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:
> On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 6:27:32 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
> > Was it usual for parents to make marriage contracts with a son or daughter's prospective spouse who lived a "long" way away? For a man to acquire an advowson in another shire?
> To supplement what others have said by addressing this particular point, it was not unusual. As early as Domesday, one can see more prominent men with holdings spread across the country, and in turn their vassals might show up in multiple of their disparate holdings, while likewise, a major tenant at one holding might be brought together with a major tenant of another, for the purposes of negotiating an intermarriage, though the intercession of their lord.
>
> Separately, London was a magnet, drawing younger sons and those politically inclined into its orbit from all over the country, and as such it served as a venue for the mid-level gentry from all over the country to intermix and intermarry. In addition to those going to London to, for example, serve in Parliament, a look at court cases and wills from the countryside often name younger sons as being 'of London', and they can sometimes be found in London records as, for example, Livery Company or Inns of Court members, and London-area visitations show people arriving from the hinterlands to establish families, or established area families marrying the daughters of minor hinterland gentry, thus acquiring lands, advowsons, etc. from far afield. Particularly in the later medieval period, the rich London bourgioisie would obtain by royal grant or purchase a country holding, and establish a new line of county gentry with London social connections. Obviously, there was less mixing at a distance than among local families, but it was not a rare phenomenon at all.
>
> taf
taf, this makes complete sense. It doesn't sound all that easy being a younger son, does it...though I'm sure heirs had lots of challenges of their own. This brings up another question: Did noble and gentry families tend to stay pretty "united" or what we might think of as close-knit, or was this hard due to soldiering and wars, far-flung land holdings, arranged marriages that might have taken daughters a long way, etc.? Or did those relationships depend largely on the same things that they do now?

Also wondering if many of the immigrants to America were younger sons, or younger sons of younger sons of younger sons, whose own resources and prospects weren't all that good. It must have been hard to take that leave, and for families and emigrants to realize they would likely never see each other again. How hard was it for families separated by an ocean to get news to one another? Thank you, as always.

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 6:14:14 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:

> It doesn't sound all that easy being a younger son, does it...though I'm sure heirs had lots of challenges of their own.

I would suggest that it depended on whom one was a younger son of, and how far down the pecking order one fell, both in society and within the family. We think of land being inherited entirely by the eldest son, but it was quite common, as part of a marriage settlement, for a younger son to be entailed with some property. If a family was overendowed with sons (or underendowed with land), such that there was not enough property to go around without endangering the financial viability of the main holding, then the younger son would be provided for in other ways, with a family-funded university education, entry into a livery company or inn of court often facilitated through social connections, or the church, which would require a certain level of endowment (and as we get into modern times, purchased army commands or naval officer positions that depended almost entirely on social connections). The younger sons were not exactly wanting for opportunity, and still had it much better off than 'The mass of men lead[ing] lives of quiet desperation' at the lower rungs of the social ladder.

> This brings up another question: Did noble and gentry families tend to stay pretty "united" or what we might think of as close-knit, or was this hard due to soldiering and wars, far-flung land holdings, arranged marriages that might have taken daughters a long way, etc.? Or did those relationships depend largely on the same things that they do now?

I would say the latter, pretty much as now. Baring some intrafamily conflict, they were relatively close at first, but as they became separated by time and generations and distance the threads of connection became progressively thinner.

> Also wondering if many of the immigrants to America were younger sons, or younger sons of younger sons of younger sons, whose own resources and prospects weren't all that good.

Certainly some of the imigrants were such, but many were not gentry at all. They were tradesmen, religious dissenters, grass-is-greener types, or those with wanderlust. There were also substantial numbers who were extremely poor. Particularly for Virginia and Maryland, before the system evolved into one of race-based enslavement, there was a huge demand for indentured servants to carry out the often-deadly labors, to the degree that there would be occasional sweeps through the poor neighborhoods of London, Liverpool, Glasgow, Dublin, Belfast, etc. for any children found out in the street to be taken up, convicted of some trumped up charge, and as punishment shipped off to America (for a large bounties split by the shippers, the kidnappers, and the magistrates passing sentence).

> It must have been hard to take that leave, and for families and emigrants to realize they would likely never see each other again. How hard was it for families separated by an ocean to get news to one another? Thank you, as always.

This would have dependend on circumstance. Someone living in Boston or Philadelphia would have had an easier time than someone living significantly inland (and likewise in England if they were communicating with someone in a port city versus someone inland). Given the volume of immigration, and the return of those immigrant ships with cargo, one could usually find a ship to take your letter, subject to the vicissitudes of the sea. Much less frequetly, while in most cases it was a one-off crossing, there were people who returned to England, and these almost certainly would have carried communications for their friends. That said, there is 'many a slip' - from a later date with more established nautical traffic, a pre-Revolutionary War-era immigrant of mine received two letters from his brother, one 25 years after they first separated, the second another 14 years later, with the latter indicating that there had been several attempts in between that never got to their destination, so it would certainly have been a hit-and-miss prospect in the 1600s. We nonetheless have some preserved letters received by colonial New Englanders from their English relatives, which have often proved invaluable in identifying immigrant origins.

taf

A segunda-feira, 28 de março de 2022 à(s) 17:08:01 UTC+1, taf escreveu:
> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 6:14:14 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
>
> > It doesn't sound all that easy being a younger son, does it...though I'm sure heirs had lots of challenges of their own.
> I would suggest that it depended on whom one was a younger son of, and how far down the pecking order one fell, both in society and within the family. We think of land being inherited entirely by the eldest son, but it was quite common, as part of a marriage settlement, for a younger son to be entailed with some property. If a family was overendowed with sons (or underendowed with land), such that there was not enough property to go around without endangering the financial viability of the main holding, then the younger son would be provided for in other ways, with a family-funded university education, entry into a livery company or inn of court often facilitated through social connections, or the church, which would require a certain level of endowment (and as we get into modern times, purchased army commands or naval officer positions that depended almost entirely on social connections). The younger sons were not exactly wanting for opportunity, and still had it much better off than 'The mass of men lead[ing] lives of quiet desperation' at the lower rungs of the social ladder.
> > This brings up another question: Did noble and gentry families tend to stay pretty "united" or what we might think of as close-knit, or was this hard due to soldiering and wars, far-flung land holdings, arranged marriages that might have taken daughters a long way, etc.? Or did those relationships depend largely on the same things that they do now?
> I would say the latter, pretty much as now. Baring some intrafamily conflict, they were relatively close at first, but as they became separated by time and generations and distance the threads of connection became progressively thinner.
> > Also wondering if many of the immigrants to America were younger sons, or younger sons of younger sons of younger sons, whose own resources and prospects weren't all that good.
> Certainly some of the imigrants were such, but many were not gentry at all. They were tradesmen, religious dissenters, grass-is-greener types, or those with wanderlust. There were also substantial numbers who were extremely poor. Particularly for Virginia and Maryland, before the system evolved into one of race-based enslavement, there was a huge demand for indentured servants to carry out the often-deadly labors, to the degree that there would be occasional sweeps through the poor neighborhoods of London, Liverpool, Glasgow, Dublin, Belfast, etc. for any children found out in the street to be taken up, convicted of some trumped up charge, and as punishment shipped off to America (for a large bounties split by the shippers, the kidnappers, and the magistrates passing sentence).
> > It must have been hard to take that leave, and for families and emigrants to realize they would likely never see each other again. How hard was it for families separated by an ocean to get news to one another? Thank you, as always.
> This would have dependend on circumstance. Someone living in Boston or Philadelphia would have had an easier time than someone living significantly inland (and likewise in England if they were communicating with someone in a port city versus someone inland). Given the volume of immigration, and the return of those immigrant ships with cargo, one could usually find a ship to take your letter, subject to the vicissitudes of the sea. Much less frequetly, while in most cases it was a one-off crossing, there were people who returned to England, and these almost certainly would have carried communications for their friends. That said, there is 'many a slip' - from a later date with more established nautical traffic, a pre-Revolutionary War-era immigrant of mine received two letters from his brother, one 25 years after they first separated, the second another 14 years later, with the latter indicating that there had been several attempts in between that never got to their destination, so it would certainly have been a hit-and-miss prospect in the 1600s. We nonetheless have some preserved letters received by colonial New Englanders from their English relatives, which have often proved invaluable in identifying immigrant origins.
>
> taf
There certainly were younger sons of the gentry who didn't suceeed in the trades and whose descendants fell further down the social ladder, though.

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:15:00 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

> There certainly were younger sons of the gentry who didn't suceeed in the trades and whose descendants fell further down the social ladder, though.

Indeed, the church registers are replete with common people bearing surnames suggesting derivation from gentry families, but one didn't have to be a younger son to fall on hard times. With a finite chance of being attainted for picking the wrong side in any of the rebellions/conflicts of the era, or simply losing one's property due to profligate spending, even the lines of eldest sons could find themselves in this condition.

taf

A terça-feira, 29 de março de 2022 à(s) 04:59:09 UTC+1, taf escreveu:
> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:15:00 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
>
> > There certainly were younger sons of the gentry who didn't suceeed in the trades and whose descendants fell further down the social ladder, though..
> Indeed, the church registers are replete with common people bearing surnames suggesting derivation from gentry families, but one didn't have to be a younger son to fall on hard times. With a finite chance of being attainted for picking the wrong side in any of the rebellions/conflicts of the era, or simply losing one's property due to profligate spending, even the lines of eldest sons could find themselves in this condition.
>
> taf

I know, but it was certainly was more common among younger sons.
Also, what do you think of the case of Mary Melford, daughter of gentleman Thomas Melford, who married husbandma Humphrey Need? See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Melford-7. The profile says Humphrey was said to have gotten lucky. How rare would you rate such ocurrences? Yeomen were in between gentlemen and husbandmen.

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 4:28:30 AM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> A terça-feira, 29 de março de 2022 à(s) 04:59:09 UTC+1, taf escreveu:
> > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:15:00 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> >
> > > There certainly were younger sons of the gentry who didn't suceeed in the trades and whose descendants fell further down the social ladder, though.
> > Indeed, the church registers are replete with common people bearing surnames suggesting derivation from gentry families, but one didn't have to be a younger son to fall on hard times. With a finite chance of being attainted for picking the wrong side in any of the rebellions/conflicts of the era, or simply losing one's property due to profligate spending, even the lines of eldest sons could find themselves in this condition.
> >
> > taf
> I know, but it was certainly was more common among younger sons.
> Also, what do you think of the case of Mary Melford, daughter of gentleman Thomas Melford, who married husbandma Humphrey Need? See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Melford-7. The profile says Humphrey was said to have gotten lucky. How rare would you rate such ocurrences? Yeomen were in between gentlemen and husbandmen.
taf, thank you for all the great learning. And Paulo, I'll be interested to hear the answer to your question. Also...could "yeoman" mean tradesman or artisan...not a gentleman, not a worker of the land? I'm also wondering about the artisans and tradesmen, and where they worked, and whether manors sometimes had their own or whether they tended to live and work in villages?

About education, I recently found my Edward FitzRandolph -- or one of his cousins of the same name -- on a list of Oxford students. It says he matriculated in the 1570s or 1580s and that he was 10 years old at the time. Is this probably correct or a transcription error...it sounds young. Did gentlemen like Edward's father send their sons to university in those times for prestige, or was the aim a much more practical one related to professional prospects?

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 1:28:30 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> Also, what do you think of the case of Mary Melford, daughter of gentleman Thomas Melford,
> who married husbandma Humphrey Need? See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Melford-7.
> The profile says Humphrey was said to have gotten lucky. How rare would you rate such
> ocurrences? Yeomen were in between gentlemen and husbandmen.

Entirely ordinary. On a local level, there would not have been that much of a social distinction between a lowest-level gentleman who held a small farm and a respected neighboring husbandman operating a farm for an absentee owner. The comment about Humphrey 'getting lucky' is just a modern person viewing things through a static class-based perspective that equates social status with success.

While there is a tendency to view social status as distinct rungs on a ladder, on the ground it was more like a continuous gradient (except for the very highest level), with people theoretically occupying the same rung in actuality being quite different, and at the same time people ostensibly occupying different rungs having equivalent or even inverted status, depending on property, money, proximity to court, etc.

taf

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 6:26:40 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:

> taf, thank you for all the great learning. And Paulo, I'll be interested to hear the answer
> to your question. Also...could "yeoman" mean tradesman or artisan...not a gentleman,
> not a worker of the land?

An online dictinary defines yeoman as: 1) a man holding and cultivating a small landed estate; a freeholder; 2) a servant in a royal or noble household, ranking between a sergeant and a groom or a squire and a page.

> I'm also wondering about the artisans and tradesmen, and where they worked, and whether
> manors sometimes had their own or whether they tended to live and work in villages?

The manors of the more affluent, those that could afford a score of retainers, would have had some of their own artisans, at least in some roles (e.g. blacksmith, brewer), smaller ones that could only afford a handful would have relied on those in the village.
> About education, I recently found my Edward FitzRandolph -- or one of his cousins of the same
> name -- on a list of Oxford students. It says he matriculated in the 1570s or 1580s and that he
> was 10 years old at the time. Is this probably correct or a transcription error...it sounds young.

It does seem young, but not necessarily an error. There may just have been some quirky circumstance.

> Did gentlemen like Edward's father send their sons to university in those times for prestige, or
> was the aim a much more practical one related to professional prospects?

It was largely practical. This kind of education was a gateway to a career in the church, in royal court administration, or in the Inns of Court. Even for those not aiming at such a career, it would have been viewed as giving them a more solid grounding in the types of knowledge and contacts that would make one more successful in society.

taf

A terça-feira, 29 de março de 2022 à(s) 19:13:46 UTC+1, taf escreveu:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 1:28:30 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > Also, what do you think of the case of Mary Melford, daughter of gentleman Thomas Melford,
> > who married husbandma Humphrey Need? See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Melford-7.
> > The profile says Humphrey was said to have gotten lucky. How rare would you rate such
> > ocurrences? Yeomen were in between gentlemen and husbandmen.
> Entirely ordinary. On a local level, there would not have been that much of a social distinction between a lowest-level gentleman who held a small farm and a respected neighboring husbandman operating a farm for an absentee owner. The comment about Humphrey 'getting lucky' is just a modern person viewing things through a static class-based perspective that equates social status with success.
>
> While there is a tendency to view social status as distinct rungs on a ladder, on the ground it was more like a continuous gradient (except for the very highest level), with people theoretically occupying the same rung in actuality being quite different, and at the same time people ostensibly occupying different rungs having equivalent or even inverted status, depending on property, money, proximity to court, etc.
>
> taf
Thanks for the reply, Todd.
Interestingly, through her grandmother Anne Clifford, who married firstly Robert Clifford and secondly Ralph Melford
, Mary Melford Need was a half-second cousin of Baronet Gervaise Clifton, who married Frances Clifford, daughter of sir Francis Clifford, 4th Earl of Cumberland. It's fascinating to see such a social gap between second cousins. Francis Clifford was also Mary Melford Need's third cousin.

On 29/03/2022 14:26, Girl57 wrote:
> Also...could "yeoman" mean tradesman or artisan...not a gentleman, not a worker of the land?

In Wills of clothiers on both sides of the Pennines testators were
likely to describe themselves as yeomen. "Clothier" was a fairly
wide-ranging description but generally covered a combination of farming
and participation in the woollen business.

The business participation might vary. At one end would be a household
with junior members and/or wife carding and spinning with the clothier
weaving and going to market to sell the cloth and buy wool. At the
other extreme he might be an entrepreneur travelling very widely buying
and selling backed up by other family members and out-workers. The
Beardsell family of Holme climbed the ladder from the one to the other.

My 5xggfather John Goddard who died in the 1750s left a will in which
the residual legatee was his first grandson (there seems to have been a
problem with his eldest son which made him unreliable). Unfortunately
the grandson died intestate and the property ended up being listed in
the manorial rolls - Wakefield manorial rolls vol x p172 et seq,
available at archive.org. Excerpts form will online at
http://www.jearnshaw.me.uk/tree/956.htm He was probably at the higher
end of the property scale.

There are a number of other Wills, largely clothiers, at
http://familytree.dearnley.com/reports/index.htm including one apparent
clothier who was a Sir John Goddard. I think he was probably from
Sheffield in the retinue of the Talbots, Lords of Sheffield and Glossop
and settled in Glossop in retirement.

Ian

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 12:06:57 PM UTC-4, Ian Goddard wrote:
> On 29/03/2022 14:26, Girl57 wrote:
> > Also...could "yeoman" mean tradesman or artisan...not a gentleman, not a worker of the land?
> In Wills of clothiers on both sides of the Pennines testators were
> likely to describe themselves as yeomen. "Clothier" was a fairly
> wide-ranging description but generally covered a combination of farming
> and participation in the woollen business.
>
> The business participation might vary. At one end would be a household
> with junior members and/or wife carding and spinning with the clothier
> weaving and going to market to sell the cloth and buy wool. At the
> other extreme he might be an entrepreneur travelling very widely buying
> and selling backed up by other family members and out-workers. The
> Beardsell family of Holme climbed the ladder from the one to the other.
>
> My 5xggfather John Goddard who died in the 1750s left a will in which
> the residual legatee was his first grandson (there seems to have been a
> problem with his eldest son which made him unreliable). Unfortunately
> the grandson died intestate and the property ended up being listed in
> the manorial rolls - Wakefield manorial rolls vol x p172 et seq,
> available at archive.org. Excerpts form will online at
> http://www.jearnshaw.me.uk/tree/956.htm He was probably at the higher
> end of the property scale.
>
> There are a number of other Wills, largely clothiers, at
> http://familytree.dearnley.com/reports/index.htm including one apparent
> clothier who was a Sir John Goddard. I think he was probably from
> Sheffield in the retinue of the Talbots, Lords of Sheffield and Glossop
> and settled in Glossop in retirement.
>
> Ian
Thank you, Ian. So interesting. This helps give me a better idea of continuum of societal positions rather than clear-cut strata. It makes sense that a single household could have junior members producing and senior members doing more of the marketing and selling, as it were. And I'm eager to start looking at manorial rolls and wills like the ones you cite. Thank you again!

On Sunday, 27 March 2022 at 14:27:32 UTC+1, Girl57 wrote:
> I haven't yet learned about how medieval and early modern English families traveled for visiting and business. Was it typical for people to go 100 miles or more, for example, to visit family? Was it a big deal and did it take a lot of prep to travel from North Yorkshire to London? Was it usual for parents to make marriage contracts with a son or daughter's prospective spouse who lived a "long" way away? For a man to acquire an advowson in another shire?
>
> How did people communicate in those times...by letter? How did word of a death or another important event happen quickly? How did people who lived some distance from each other work on the details of a marriage contract, for example?

I think you have a problem here with the Medieval/Early Modern generalisations. Historians have 'separated' the two 'periods' because they have distinct differences. What's a fair description for 1400 is not necessarily applicable to 1500, 1600, or 1700. This is a 'medieval' group and so you are going to get a bias towards the early years (for instance, in what the term 'yeoman' means). Ian Goddard is unusual in that he comes originally from an Early Modern research experience and has moved medieval over the last 20 years (I hope, Ian, you don't mind me saying that! And, if you disagree, I apologise in advance). I've rather stuck to my guns in being an Early Modern specialist - my uni specialisations in The Crusades and The Italian Renaissance aren't exactly helpful here!

To give you a fact. My ancestor, Daniel Dickinson, was employed as a courier between Penrith in the north of England and London in the 1660s. The journey took him three days, using a postal system for exchange of horses that wasn't available 20 years earlier.

https://archiveweb.cumbria.gov.uk/CalmView/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=BDHJ%2f220%2f1%2f14&pos=1

Chris

On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 2:06:05 PM UTC-4, Chris Dickinson wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 March 2022 at 14:27:32 UTC+1, Girl57 wrote:
> > I haven't yet learned about how medieval and early modern English families traveled for visiting and business. Was it typical for people to go 100 miles or more, for example, to visit family? Was it a big deal and did it take a lot of prep to travel from North Yorkshire to London? Was it usual for parents to make marriage contracts with a son or daughter's prospective spouse who lived a "long" way away? For a man to acquire an advowson in another shire?
> >
> > How did people communicate in those times...by letter? How did word of a death or another important event happen quickly? How did people who lived some distance from each other work on the details of a marriage contract, for example?
> I think you have a problem here with the Medieval/Early Modern generalisations. Historians have 'separated' the two 'periods' because they have distinct differences. What's a fair description for 1400 is not necessarily applicable to 1500, 1600, or 1700. This is a 'medieval' group and so you are going to get a bias towards the early years (for instance, in what the term 'yeoman' means). Ian Goddard is unusual in that he comes originally from an Early Modern research experience and has moved medieval over the last 20 years (I hope, Ian, you don't mind me saying that! And, if you disagree, I apologise in advance). I've rather stuck to my guns in being an Early Modern specialist - my uni specialisations in The Crusades and The Italian Renaissance aren't exactly helpful here!
>
> To give you a fact. My ancestor, Daniel Dickinson, was employed as a courier between Penrith in the north of England and London in the 1660s. The journey took him three days, using a postal system for exchange of horses that wasn't available 20 years earlier.
>
> https://archiveweb.cumbria.gov.uk/CalmView/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=BDHJ%2f220%2f1%2f14&pos=1
>
> Chris
Urgent business for the King...how wonderful! And Daniel Dickinson's fresh horse is a great example of how things change, isn't it? A straight line of your surname from Daniel to you must make you feel specially connected to him.

Your point about generalizing between and among "periods" is a good one. I am a complete novice at "medieval" and "early modern" study; while I'm an experienced and pretty competent amateur genealogist in some areas of American work, anything in England is new for me. But it's a bucket-list item to dig up some of my English roots and even try to visit some ancestral towns.

I can see after being here a short time that there are very knowledgeable folks here, and I'm considerably out of my depth in this genealogical sector.. I've briefly reviewed the group guidelines, and I hope someone tells me if my questions are way too basic, burdensome, too frequent, or just out of step with the general level. That said, it's fantastic to benefit from your expertise...It's not easy to find materials that not only offer definitions, but context.

Thank you again, Chris. I'll be back!

A terça-feira, 29 de março de 2022 à(s) 19:13:46 UTC+1, taf escreveu:
> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 1:28:30 AM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > Also, what do you think of the case of Mary Melford, daughter of gentleman Thomas Melford,
> > who married husbandma Humphrey Need? See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Melford-7.
> > The profile says Humphrey was said to have gotten lucky. How rare would you rate such
> > ocurrences? Yeomen were in between gentlemen and husbandmen.
> Entirely ordinary. On a local level, there would not have been that much of a social distinction between a lowest-level gentleman who held a small farm and a respected neighboring husbandman operating a farm for an absentee owner. The comment about Humphrey 'getting lucky' is just a modern person viewing things through a static class-based perspective that equates social status with success.
>
> While there is a tendency to view social status as distinct rungs on a ladder, on the ground it was more like a continuous gradient (except for the very highest level), with people theoretically occupying the same rung in actuality being quite different, and at the same time people ostensibly occupying different rungs having equivalent or even inverted status, depending on property, money, proximity to court, etc.
>
> taf
Also, note their son also named Humphrey Need was a yeoman which indicates the family was rising.

On 04/04/2022 19:06, Chris Dickinson wrote:
> Ian Goddard is unusual in that he comes originally from an Early Modern research experience and has moved medieval over the last 20 years (I hope, Ian, you don't mind me saying that!

A bit more complicated.

From a genealogical perspective - working backwards from modern
modern. But fairly early on I came across the Millar collection -
medieval charters from Yorkshire and discovered the evolution of my
surname from a given name ("son of Godard") to become hereditary in the
late C13th about 30 miles away. The real difference to many here is
that my perspective is one where royal and aristocratic lines are most
unlikely. There are some West Riding local gentry but as far as I can
see they are very likely working up from the bottom. E.g. several
descents from Kaye of Woodsome but in my view the likeliest origin for
those were a burgess family of Wakefield a century earlier.

But add to that local history over a wide spectrum, helped by the fact
that we have a good collection of published manorial rolls from the
1270s up to (currently) the C19th from Wakefield.

Further back you can throw in Irish pre-history from my days as a
palaeoecologist in Belfast.

Ian

If you can get access to the BBC iPlayer (or maybe some US PBS system
might have them) you might do worse than watch Michael Wood's Story of
England series based on the perspective of a single place in the East
Midlands.

On 27/03/2022 14:27, Girl57 wrote:
> I haven't yet learned about how medieval and early modern English families traveled for visiting and business.

Here's one I came across yesterday. It would be fair to say the Greens
became a local gentry family in the Holmfirth area but in the C13th they
were definitely villeins. We find them in the 1st volume of the
Wakefield manorial rolls (archive.org).

In the 1280s (p 183) we discover that Richard del Grene nevertheless had
a servant.

In the 1290s (p242) it's confirmed that he was a villein and that he had
bought property in Pontefract, Barnsley and Skelmanthorpe. We don't
know exactly where he was living but it may well have been at
Greenhouse, unlabelled but pointed to by the arrow here:
https://streetmap.co.uk/map?x=411765&y=405547&z=115&sv=411765,405547&st=4&ar=y&mapp=map&searchp=ids&dn=784&ax=411765&ay=405547&lm=0
You can zoom out to find the relationship to the places mentioned.

Leaving aside the fact that a villein could buy what would almost
certainly have been free property in his manorial lord's rival's
territory Pontefract would have been about 30 miles distant, Barnsley a
little over half that and Skelly about half that to Barnsley.

He was subsequently (p252) required to find pledges that he would not
remove his goods out of the manor. He found pledges (p257) and his
stock is listed at 3 oxen, 3 cows, 24 sheep & 10 quarters of oats (the
principle grain in the area).

Ian